Dracorat said:
It may be uncomfortable to think that by using diagonals, more internal squares are affected, but the count of internal squares is not part of the rule for blasts.
If a figure is X squares by X squares, then there is dimension U with parallel lines of squares that can be numbered 1, 2, and 3; and there is dimension V with parallel lines of squares that can be assigned A, B, and C.
Code:
. . 3 . . .
. 2 . X . .
1 . X ? X .
. X ? X ? X
A . X ? X .
. B . X . .
. . C . . .
Each X corresponds to both one of three designated squares on one side, and one of three on the perpendicular side. Since the ? marks do not correspond to either of the 3 squares per side, they are not part of the defined area. Either one believes that spell effects have a patchwork result, or one has made a mistake in their method of determining an effect area.
In fact, the count of internal squares is entirely implicit in the definitions provided in the PHB. A 3 x 3 square has an area of 9 using basic mathematics. If the result of your counting differs, then the only reasonable conclusion is You're Doing It Wrong™.
As I previously showed, by definition, a figure with 3 squares on a side must logically also have 3 squares diagonal. For example, A1 to C3 consists of 3 countable squares. However, this figure:
Code:
. . 1 . .
. X 2 X .
1 2 3 4 5
. X 4 X .
. . 5 . .
Has a crosssection consisting of 5 squares, and in fact occupies an area of 5 squares by 5 squares on the board, with corners removed. If an area is 3 squares on a side, but it takes 5 squares to walk from one corner to the other, and fractional squares aren't permitted, then this area contradicts the definition provided. It isn't 3x3.
The diamond is not a 3 square by 3 square area, and is not consistent with an accurate 45º rotation of a 3x3 area rendered squarely on the battle grid.
Unless the rules explicitly state "You may determine a spell effect area by counting a number of squares diagonally, and another 3 at a right angle from the first and taking all interior squares of the figure within", then doing so is not actually part of the rules. It's a houserule which is within your rights, but not part of the
D&D 4th Edition game as presented to players.
(It is for bursts because of their different method of measurement).
I take it you admit the definition of counting X squares from center in all directions is sufficiently unassailable. Due to the treatment of diagonals, the result is actually a fine approximation of a circular effect. Welcome to a non-Euclidian space.
For any spell effect, when authors or DMs are determining an appropriate level of damage, it should be possible to predict the total area that spell can act upon.
I previously asked a similar question, but did not receive a satisfactory answer: what is the maximum number of minions that can be killed by a 10x10 blast effect?
And until this thread, I was always under the assumption when people measured three squares on a side, they did it in any orientation they wished.
A diamond figure is not 3 squares on a side. It is an expanded pattern of squares only available by counting diagonally, and results in larger horizontal and vertical dimensions than the rules provide for.
I am not here to say "I am right, you are wrong" but rather to say to the OP that using RAW, there are people (like me) who do believe it is perfectly legitimate.
Only if you believe the rules have a burden to specifically address all possible misreadings, rather than expecting reasonable players to work from the examples provided.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with houseruling things. Use hexes, or play with alternate spell effect shapes all you like. My problem, from the beginning, has been the insistence that because the rules do not disallow a particular interpretation (which is not their burden) then that interpretation is a correct reading of the rules.
